Cops crack down on cell phones in school zones

Sep 22, 2010 Full story: Antioch Review 117

The Niles Police Department is focusing on preventing cell phone usage, including texting, in school zones.

Full Story
Mystery Man

Lake In The Hills, IL

#81 Oct 7, 2010
Mr_No wrote:
1. MM - 5 years for a phone is a really long time. I would temper my expectations there if I were you.
2. Is it the talking on the phone while driving or holding the phone to your head while driving? The former, if using a hands free device or in car connection is no different than engaging in a conversation with a passenger. In fact, since that conversational partner is not present, you don't have to feel compelled to look at him at all.
BTW, we have completely jacked this thread.
What do you mean by jack this thread ?

Anyway i brilliantly discussed hand held vs hands free in another post. But since you missed it i'll go it over again.
For simplicity lets call it HF - Hands Free and HH Hand Held )
The difference is actually very minor.
Those who hold it to the ear have a harder physical time driving most noticeable when making left turns.
The number one problem of cell usage while driving is the distraction from the road to the phone call.
This occurs both HF and HH.
Physically looking at who you are talking to obviously takes your eyes off the road. That's a given.
But its its the distraction of the mind that i'm talking about.
That occurs whether you see the person or not.
Also phone call conversation tends to be more intense then a person in the car conversation.
You're more adapt to force your point over a phone where you're not 100% sure if the reviver is getting your message.
If someone sitting next to you then you know if they are really listening to you or not.
So my point is
1) HF vs HH only makes a slight difference and its physical.
2 ) in person conversation is not as distracting as a cell phone conversation. They are different. You may not view it differently but i do and i think others do too. That is why laws about driving with cell phones are being written. And more will be written later.
Gen X

Racine, WI

#82 Oct 7, 2010
Babies are more distracting than cell phones. Do you old folks want to ban those too? Also you old folks must be losing your long term memory thinking gen x is not old enough to drive. Gen x applies to anyone born 1961 to 1981. That would put the youngest at 29 oldest at 49. Look I know I'm aging and someday technology will scare me too.
Mystery Man

Lake In The Hills, IL

#83 Oct 7, 2010
Gen X wrote:
Babies are more distracting than cell phones. Do you old folks want to ban those too? Also you old folks must be losing your long term memory thinking gen x is not old enough to drive. Gen x applies to anyone born 1961 to 1981. That would put the youngest at 29 oldest at 49. Look I know I'm aging and someday technology will scare me too.
Too bad you're not getting wiser with age.
Its rare but i guess you're proof that it does happen.
It never bothered me when my daughter was a baby.
I became a single parent when she reached 3 yrs old and that too was never a problem.
Babies sleep a lot in cars and kids find other things to occupy their car time.
You do seem to have a lot of fear in you.
You fear the loss of your cell phone during a drive.
You fear getting old ( whatever that age is )
I remember when my daughter hit 20 and said she was no longer a teen.
And i replied wait until you hit middle age like me.
She then answered are you planing on living past 100 ?
I doubt i'll go past three digits of life.
But i don't fear it. I welcome it.
Just like i welcome the day they ban cell phones in cars.
You do sound like someone too young to drive.
I've never known an adult to talk about Gen X
Isn't that a video game ?

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#84 Oct 7, 2010
Mystery Man wrote:
Actually i think the old days were great. What years are talking ?
I was born in 51 so i can remember pretty far back and a lot of those years were good for me.
I did build a fence to keep kids off the property.
What part of it being my property don't you understand ?
The rights of those kids end when they interfere with my rights as a homeowner.
Thanks for proving that you're a cranky old person.
Mystery Man wrote:
And that is your problem in a nut shell.
You think that you can disturb those around you with loud cell phones conversations. And you try and justify it with train conversation ? That's like saying well i can rob a bank since people shop lift in stores.
Loud conversation that disturbs others around them is wrong no matter where it is and how its being done.
If you don't like it, then don't go out in PUBLIC. You have no right to tell someone what to do in a public place. As long as they're not directly threatening you physically, then it's too bad if you feel they're talking too loud.
And it's nothing like saying someone can rob a bank because others shoplift. Loud conversation on the train is just annoying, theft is ILLEGAL. But, as I see from your next post, that's your plan - to make all the behaviors YOU find annoying, illegal. You'd better hope they don't pass a law stating that anyone over 70 shouldn't drive,'cause from my math, you're a lot closer than I am.
Mystery Man wrote:
Again they are passing cell phones laws in cars because it is a problem.
Or should i say YOU are the problem the law is trying to solve.
Whether i know how to text or not isn't the issue.
I would never use a cell phone in a car period.
I could be a text expert and i still wouldn't do it.
And i'll vote for whomever will pass a law to stop everyone else ESPECIALLY YOU from using a cell phone in a car.
You seem to be a very careless person about the safety of others.
And you use "safety" to justify your selfishness. You're not interested in safety, you're only using the concept to force others to behave how YOU think they should.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#85 Oct 7, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing I have to say about you is that you are a typical young adult -- selfish and self absorbed. Come back when you grow up.
You have no idea how old I am.
And it seems to me that those of you who are in favor of passing grand, sweeping laws to satisfy your own personal wants are the ones who are selfish.

How about we pass a law that anyone over the age of 65 shouldn't drive because SOME people over the age of 65 suck at it?

You know, I know some women who aren't good drivers, perhaps we should revoke their driving privileges too?

Any other groups you'd like to target because a small portion of them cannot do something correctly?

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#86 Oct 7, 2010
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree i think this thread has run its course.
Its obvious that HOLD PLEASE only cares about herself and no one else.
She is the type that will cause an accident with her cell phone.
Its only a matter of time.
I thought we'd gone over this: not for nothing, but I'm not a woman. There's that sexism coming through again, MM.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#87 Oct 7, 2010
District 34 Parent wrote:
<quoted text>
No Ms. "Hole Please", what this is is a Baby Boomer trying to get a point across to a Gen X. You go ahead and continue to make whatever point you feel the need to. I stand by my comment that holding a conversation on a cellphone is distracting to any driver. I don't care whether you personally think you are a terrific multi-tasker or not. It's just common sense. Try it sometime. And, try taking a break with your keyboard and absorbing what is being said to you by others. Come down to earth with the rest of us and maybe you will see more clearly.
Do you see what you've written here?
"...is a Baby Boomer trying to get a point across to a Gen X..."
"...I stand by my comment..."
"...I don't care..."
This isn't about common sense, it's about what YOU perceive is common sense.
All I'm saying is that you all seem to be targeting cell phones, when there are other things that people do while driving that are just as distracting. I don't see anyone advocating passing laws to ban:
- eating in the car
- listening to loud music in the car
- putting on makeup in the car
- having loud conversations in the car
- reading in the car
- daydreaming in the car

No, my issue isn't about whether it's right or wrong, my problem is that too many people just want to ban activities that THEY think are wrong, using the concept of "safety" as the reason. Stop trying to regulate behavior by banning everything, it doesn't work. And for Pete's sake, if you're going to suggest a ban on something because, "it might be distracting," then you're going to have to go all the way. Stop singling out one thing because YOU don't agree with it.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#88 Oct 7, 2010
Andie J wrote:
Yes yes & yes! I tell people I'm one of the 4 remaining people in this country who does not have a cell phone. And for that, I'm glad. Sure, they have their uses. But what did people do in the dark ages, you know, before cell phones were invented? They either used a pay phone, or waited until they got home. It was not a great hardship. If there is an emergency, say, with your kids, what are you going to do while stuck in traffic? Parents once made sure that there was an adult or an older kid nearby in case the younger kids had a problem. Now, they just rely on their phones. That won't do you a whole lot of good if the battery is dead.
Sure, it wasn't a great hardship, because you had no other choice. But now we do. It's called progress. There was a time when we didn't have ovens and we got along just fine. But isn't it better now that we do have them?
Andie J wrote:
I don't blame things like this solely on cell phone users. Another time, I was walking past a gas station. Still wearing that purple parka. Two women had their cars parked side-by-side facing opposite directions. They were having a lively conversation thru their open windows. One of the women took her foot off the brake & started coasting forward before she turned her eyes to the road. Wow, was she ever surprised when she heard me yelling like a maniac to stop her car. She stopped about 2" from my left knee. Yes, there are idiots in all walks of life. But cell phone use while driving is a controllable situation. More care needs to be taken when using a hands-on device. It's every bit as bad as reading the paper, putting on makeup or eating while driving.

Now, how about those fax machines you can use in the car?
At least SOMEBODY recognizes that it's the person who's at fault and not the device. Sure cell phone use is controllable, which is why there are hands-free an non-texting laws. But there's no need to ban the use outright.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#89 Oct 7, 2010
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm proud of my age. I'll be 59 next month.
I guess i won't be inviting you to my birthday party.
What kind of person are you that you would attack someone based on their age ?
Need i remind you aging is something you also are experiencing.
Somehow i doubt you'll face it with grace.
My debate with cell phone drivers is based on the rise in accidents due to their inattentive driving caused by their use of the cell phone.
Their age is never a factor.
As for the gasp of technology i gasp it just fine.
Some of it i like and some i don't.
I understand the buttons on the phone i just think my land line is easier to use. Buttons are not flat and bigger.
Anyway come back and join the debate when you're old enough to drive a car.
Who's attacking someone based on their age now?
And that "rise" in accidents is a correlation, not a causation. It's been argued that due to cell phones, more accidents are being reported as now there's no reason not to call the Police.

And to say that someone's age is never a factor when it comes to safety on the road is either ignorance or apathy. Age is certainly a factor (I notice how when it hits you personally, then you claim that there's no facts to support it).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-0...
Mystery Man

Lake In The Hills, IL

#90 Oct 7, 2010
Gee i'm a popular guy. And darn good looking too.
My fence wasn't about being cranky. It was about being tired of picking up beer bottles, McDummy wrappers,and other damages they did to my property until the fence went up.

I have every right to speak up in public. I guess you never heard of the 1st Amendment. If your loud conversations are disturbing those around you count on me to be the 1st to speak up. It would be my pleasure.

Not sure what age it is 65 ? At some point drivers do have to take the behind the wheel test every year.
Its a good law i'm all for it. My mom stopped driving at age 78. I think it depends on the person. If i'm not safe at 70 i'll be happy to quit. Maybe i'll get a ride from you and nag you.

If being safe equals being selfish i'm glad to be selfish. I wish you were safety conscious.

Did you say some women are NOT good drivers ?
WOW ( and you call me a sexist ?)
Some of the best drivers are women. My late wife was the best driver i ever knew.

I think your a woman. I really do.
You didn't understand at all how men talk to each other. As pointed out by another poster.
You present your point of view in a writing style more consistent with female writers then male writers.
Its NOT sexist to make note that there is a difference between men and women.
Including in writing styles.
What is sexist was your remark that women should have their licenses revoke based only on the fact that they are women.
I hope the woman reading this thread make a clear note of this fact.
I also wouldn't be surprised if you and Gen X are the same person.
Mr_No

United States

#91 Oct 7, 2010
Mystery Man wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by jack this thread ?
Anyway i brilliantly discussed hand held vs hands free in another post. But since you missed it i'll go it over again.
For simplicity lets call it HF - Hands Free and HH Hand Held )
The difference is actually very minor.
Those who hold it to the ear have a harder physical time driving most noticeable when making left turns.
The number one problem of cell usage while driving is the distraction from the road to the phone call.
This occurs both HF and HH.
Physically looking at who you are talking to obviously takes your eyes off the road. That's a given.
But its its the distraction of the mind that i'm talking about.
That occurs whether you see the person or not.
Also phone call conversation tends to be more intense then a person in the car conversation.
You're more adapt to force your point over a phone where you're not 100% sure if the reviver is getting your message.
If someone sitting next to you then you know if they are really listening to you or not.
So my point is
1) HF vs HH only makes a slight difference and its physical.
2 ) in person conversation is not as distracting as a cell phone conversation. They are different. You may not view it differently but i do and i think others do too. That is why laws about driving with cell phones are being written. And more will be written later.
Yes, I did miss this as it has gotten buried. For the record I respectfully disagree with your premise about having a more distracting conversation on the phone than in person.

Thread Jacked - we have strayed from the original topic.
Mystery Man

Lake In The Hills, IL

#92 Oct 7, 2010
Mr_No wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I did miss this as it has gotten buried. For the record I respectfully disagree with your premise about having a more distracting conversation on the phone than in person.
Thread Jacked - we have strayed from the original topic.
Thanks you for defining Thread Jacked for me.
I don't think we strayed too far. After all the topic was cell phones and why they are banned around schools.
Once we understand the logic to why they are banned around a school zone its only natural to realize the same is true everywhere.

If cell phones usage in a car present a clear danger around a school then they also present such a danger everywhere else.
Or do you somehow think the risk factor just disappears as you drive away from a school ?

As for the respectfully disagreeing.
We both respectfully agree to disagree.

Its a pleasure to exchange opposing views without the personal insults and attack that so often happens when someone realizes they can't make a legit point.
Just Sayin

Chicago, IL

#93 Oct 7, 2010
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea how old I am.
And it seems to me that those of you who are in favor of passing grand, sweeping laws to satisfy your own personal wants are the ones who are selfish.
How about we pass a law that anyone over the age of 65 shouldn't drive because SOME people over the age of 65 suck at it?
You know, I know some women who aren't good drivers, perhaps we should revoke their driving privileges too?
Any other groups you'd like to target because a small portion of them cannot do something correctly?
I only target the selfish and self absorbed people like yourself.
Just Sayin

Chicago, IL

#94 Oct 7, 2010
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, it wasn't a great hardship, because you had no other choice. But now we do. It's called progress. There was a time when we didn't have ovens and we got along just fine. But isn't it better now that we do have them?
<quoted text>
At least SOMEBODY recognizes that it's the person who's at fault and not the device. Sure cell phone use is controllable, which is why there are hands-free an non-texting laws. But there's no need to ban the use outright.
Why not just get a 20 in TV and a small hard drive and put that on the dashboard so you can download movies from Netflix while driving, too. It would be a shame to ignore such technological progress especially in the car. After all, the car is not just a vehicle to get from one place to another - it is an entertainment center and place of business.
VyvB

United States

#95 Oct 8, 2010
Hold please wrote:
This isn't about common sense, it's about what YOU perceive is common sense.
Actually it's more about how you LACK common sense. We used to have better common sense as a country, it seems to slip farther away with each generation. Of course you have the right to talk as loud and as long as you wish on your cell phone in public. But it is rude to do so, and any person with good common sense would understand how rude they are being to the people around them.
Hold please wrote:
All I'm saying is that you all seem to be targeting cell phones, when there are other things that people do while driving that are just as distracting. I don't see anyone advocating passing laws to ban:
- eating in the car
- listening to loud music in the car
- putting on makeup in the car
- having loud conversations in the car
- reading in the car
- daydreaming in the car
That's because this topic is about cell phones. I think anyone exhibiting poor driving habits for any of the above reasons should be pulled over and ticketed (and a cop probably would pull you over for at least half of the distractions on your list). Listing other distractions does not prove your point about cell phones. Cell phones are just another in a set of distractions that add up to poor driving habits. And since they are easier to police than having a conversation or daydreaming you are more likely to see laws banning their use.
Mystery Man

Lake In The Hills, IL

#96 Oct 8, 2010
I would amend your statement about its a person's right to talk LOUD as long as you wish on a cell phone in public.
There are laws against causing a disturbance.
And there are public places if you decide to have a very LOUD cell phone conversation you will be stopped cold.
1 ) a library
2 ) court house
3 ) a hospital
4 ) police station
5 ) funeral home
i'm sure i'm missing a good number of places but you get the idea.
Its more then just rude to have loud cell phone conversations.
It can be against the law for disturbing the peace.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#97 Oct 19, 2010
Mystery Man wrote:
I have every right to speak up in public. I guess you never heard of the 1st Amendment. If your loud conversations are disturbing those around you count on me to be the 1st to speak up. It would be my pleasure.
Okaaaay... so... you claim people have the 1st Amendment right to speak up in public, but then claim that people who speak loudly in public (cell phone or not) don't share that right. Which is it?
Mystery Man wrote:
Not sure what age it is 65 ? At some point drivers do have to take the behind the wheel test every year.
Its a good law i'm all for it. My mom stopped driving at age 78. I think it depends on the person. If i'm not safe at 70 i'll be happy to quit. Maybe i'll get a ride from you and nag you.
There's many who would disagree with you and say that forcing someone to take a driving test on a yearly basis after a certain birthday is age discrimination.
Mystery Man wrote:
If being safe equals being selfish i'm glad to be selfish. I wish you were safety conscious.
Don't assume you know whether or not I'm safety conscious just because I believe that the majority of people have the ability to use hands-free while driving.
Mystery Man wrote:
Did you say some women are NOT good drivers ?
WOW ( and you call me a sexist ?)
Some of the best drivers are women. My late wife was the best driver i ever knew.
Wow, you are just the worst kind of person with whom to get into a discussion. If you read what I wrote, you'd notice that I was ridiculing your notion that since SOME people cannot drive and talk on a cell phone, you wish to deprive ALL the priveledge. And in doing so I made reference to random groups and people I PERSONALLY knew. But everyone will recognize your redirection and recognize it for what it was - a feeble attempt to get the attention off of you and put it on me.
Mystery Man wrote:
I think your a woman. I really do.
And you'd be wrong.
Mystery Man wrote:
You didn't understand at all how men talk to each other. As pointed out by another poster.
I understand that's how men lacking in self-confidence talk to each other. For the rest of us who are secure in our sexuality, we don't need to put our friends down.
Mystery Man wrote:
You present your point of view in a writing style more consistent with female writers then male writers.
But you're not sexist. Get over this concept that there are "male" and "female" writing styles. Accept people for who they are, and stop trying to "figure out" who I am. And stop trying to move the conversation away from the subject at hand. Redirection is the first defense of the guilty.
Mystery Man wrote:
Its NOT sexist to make note that there is a difference between men and women.
Including in writing styles.
What is sexist was your remark that women should have their licenses revoke based only on the fact that they are women.
Once again, I never said that. Perhaps if you learned to listen to what others say instead of regarding their opinions as inferior and dismissable, then you might actually NOT sound like a closed-minded, grumpy, old man.
Mystery Man wrote:
I hope the woman reading this thread make a clear note of this fact.
I have complete faith that the women who would read this are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
Mystery Man wrote:
I also wouldn't be surprised if you and Gen X are the same person.
I don't even know who you're talking about. Once again, stop trying to figure me out,'cause you keep failing.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#98 Oct 19, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I only target the selfish and self absorbed people like yourself.
Am I now? Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#99 Oct 19, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not just get a 20 in TV and a small hard drive and put that on the dashboard so you can download movies from Netflix while driving, too. It would be a shame to ignore such technological progress especially in the car. After all, the car is not just a vehicle to get from one place to another - it is an entertainment center and place of business.
Try to stay within the realm of reality, hmmm?

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#100 Oct 19, 2010
VyvB wrote:
Actually it's more about how you LACK common sense. We used to have better common sense as a country, it seems to slip farther away with each generation.
Fear and ignorance isn't common sense.
Common sense is knowing your limitations and acting accordingly.
It's not knowing YOUR limitations, or YOUR perceived limitations of others' abilities and then promoting laws that would restrict others' freedoms based on YOUR lack of ability or YOUR fears.
VyvB wrote:
Of course you have the right to talk as loud and as long as you wish on your cell phone in public. But it is rude to do so, and any person with good common sense would understand how rude they are being to the people around them.
So let's see: talking loudly on a cell phone is rude, because it interferes with the "right" of the people around them to have quiet, but promoting laws that restrict others' freedoms based on your own fears isn't rude? Interesting...
VyvB wrote:
That's because this topic is about cell phones. I think anyone exhibiting poor driving habits for any of the above reasons should be pulled over and ticketed (and a cop probably would pull you over for at least half of the distractions on your list). Listing other distractions does not prove your point about cell phones. Cell phones are just another in a set of distractions that add up to poor driving habits. And since they are easier to police than having a conversation or daydreaming you are more likely to see laws banning their use.
To be specific, this topic is about banning the use of cell phones while in a car around a school.
Regardless, the common reason I've heard for the banning of the use of a cell phone while driving is because it's a distraction. I provided that list because if we ban the use of a cell phone while driving only because it's a "distraction", then, logically, we should also ban EVERYTHING that could be a potential distraction, such as radios, talking, GPS, eating, etc.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Niles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mount Rushmore in Melrose 8 min sloppy seconds 1
New statue Michael marchetti he hAs done so much 20 min sloppy seconds 8
Nonna work for Terry? 34 min sloppy seconds 1
Do you approve of Ronald M. Serpico as Mayor? (Oct '12) 45 min sloppy seconds 32
Terry Serpico and Vito Scavo 1 hr sloppy seconds 14
Leave Mom Alone 1 hr sloppy seconds 6
Taxpayer and Wildbill Dating? 1 hr sloppy seconds 21
Niles Dating
Find my Match

Niles Jobs

Niles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Niles News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Niles

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]